Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Mephistopheles

    Mephistopheles GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    AMEN!!!! This was managed to make sure that the American public suffered the worst discomfort over a very minimal spending cut.

    In the private sector, suppliers are asked to find cost efficiencies all the time and many do. But ask the government to get by with 1 cent less and you would think it was an Unamerican request.

  2. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    I read last night that members of both parties in congress are insisting the army spend $500 million on Abrams tanks the army doesn’t want.

    The army doesn’t want any more tanks until 2017, yet congressmen (again, from both political parties) want to bring home the pork barrel spending. Wasteful government spending isn’t a partisan issue.

  3. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 3 years ago

    Airports are not going to fix runways to save the money to pay air traffic controllers. Let’s see how that works out.

  4. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    Ramirez calls it a 2% budget cut which seems small, but when you factor the actual budget minus 2% it amounts to 600 million dollars being cut from the FAA.

    And then you wing nuts wonder why we call you crazy people…

  5. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    You got that right, my brother.

    What has congress got to do with how the military makes purchases of weapons systems? Other than as you say (bringing) home the pork.

    Each spending item should be a stand alone bill. No riders, no amendments nothing.

    But that will take too much time and crowd the docket with legislation that has to be reviewed for every single item, you say.

    I say. yes, exactly. Maybe you would concentrate on the necessary things and let all the waste go

  6. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago


    Maybe they’re planning to sell them on the open market. Remember the Hummer?

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    come on dude. don’t let the zeros get to you.

    read this.


    Some excerpts:

    "This $15.2 billion budget continues the deployment of key
    NextGen benefits to our aviation stak
    eholders, maintains critical safety pr
    ograms, and modernizes our aviation
    infrastructure at a total funding level that is 4.6 percent
    lower than FY 2012. "

    Isn’t 2% of 15.2 billion 304 million? (math challenged so you do it too)

    So the very next paragraph presents a curiosity:

    “The FY 2013 request of $9.7 billion is an increase of $65
    million (0.67 percent) above the FY 2012 enacted level.”

    So which is it 15.2 or 9.7?

    “The Operations budget request includes
    a $10 million increase for Performance Based Navigation (PBN)”

    on the latest industry indica
    tors, FAA forecasts more than
    40 launch and reentry operations in 2013, a tenfold increase
    from 2011. These increased activity levels create a
    corresponding number of licenses, environmental assessments, safety analyses, and sa
    fety inspections, and the
    budget includes $846 thousand to meet th
    is significant increase in workload. "

    The bu
    dget proposes to increase the local cost share cap from
    20 to 50 percent so less cost-effective towers would bear
    more operational costs. Th
    e FAA will also use newly-
    available, site-specific cost information
    to update benefit-cost ratios used to
    determine local share. As a result of
    these actions, FAA anticipates $2 million in savings in FY 2013

    Facilities & Equipment (F&E):The FY 2013 request of $2.85 billion represents a 4.4
    percent increase from the FY 2012 enacted level.

    The F&E NextGen portfolio is $955 million in FY 2013, an
    11 percent increase above the enacted FY 2012 enacted

    This post is getting to long. READ the budget and see all the requests for an increase from last year.

    Do you think they can forgo some of that and not lay off controllers?

  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago


    Jase99, NBC Nightly News had a story on this very issue last month. They showed the “parking lot” in the desert where the tanks are sitting out in the open air because there are so many of them there’s no place to properly store them. How long before the heat of day and cold of night do enough humidity damage to make reconditioning those vehicles necessary?
    It should be noted that the money being released in order to keep flight controllers at work is coming from the fund that is supposed to improve airport infrastructure and safety.
    The congress will probably do this over the entirety of the sequester… ignore problems until it effects so many people that the noise is unbearable, or until it effects them personally.
    Mostly it protects congressmen who don’t want to be ‘fired’ for making hard decisions from blame, because as so many commentators are pointing out above, “It’s THEIR fault!!! Not OURS!”
    The sequester is like ants on watermelon.
    Yes, we need to get rid of the ants, but not with Gallagher’s Sledgehammer.
    Pass the tweezers please.

  9. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    Good idea.

  10. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 3 years ago

    I’m sure ScottPM will give you a better answer,
    but I read quoted testimony to Congress in a hearing on the FAA sequester, the people working in control towers told Congress that in meetings, the top job holders in FAA said they were going to use furloughs FIRST in order to anger the public airline users, by delayed and cancelled flights to inconvenience them. It was FAA obeying Obama’s agenda to stick it to the Public to try to turn Americans against cutting the massive annual over-spending of the Democrats in power in the White House and in Congress.
    (sworn testimony)….

  11. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago



    He warned us his 2nd term was about “Revenge”.

  12. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    “Mostly it protects congressmen who don’t want to be ‘fired’ for making hard decisions from blame, because as so many commentators are pointing out above, “It’s THEIR fault!!! Not OURS!””

    The FAA furloughs impact people with money & influence. Not surprisingly, Congress is moving fast to “fix” the problem.

  13. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Speaking of tanks on the desert, and “backed up” air travel, there are an amazing number of aircraft stored out in the desert because the airlines have reduced flights and fleets so that every flight is full, well, actually , most are overbooked, so getting where you’re going is getting a lot harder, as fairs go up!

  14. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    There are two things that people are missing. It’s not about the 2% “cut,” it’s about comparative spending. It’s a 2% decrease in the increased spending levels. Based on what I’ve found, it’s not a true cut, just a slow-down in the increase of expenditures.

    Secondly, why are we furloughing employees when TSA is buying new uniforms? $50 million for uniforms. By some math, that’s about $1,000 per TSA employee. We shrink this to say… $500 per employee (which is still a lot, because my work doesn’t pay for my business casual dress code), and you just saved $25 million. And it’s not like TSA employees are poor; I know a few of them and they are making decent money. They can afford to buy a couple new shirts for themselves.

    So how many Air Traffic Controllers will $25 million support? Pretty sure it’s more than what are being furloughed. This is politics, pure and simple.

  15. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    The inclusion of a “sequester” clause was called for by the Obama camp. Why? Because they felt it was too big a hit on defense spending for republicans to allow it to go into effect.

    The sequester was a “fail-safe” to happen in the event that congress could not agree on an equal amount of spending cuts by a certain date. Congress approved the idea and the President signed it into law. Obama swore he would veto any attempt to alter or eliminate the sequester other than the deal outlined.

    Congress did not reach any agreement. Go figure.

    All of this information is freely found on the internet. If you want to learn about it rather than repeat talking points, feel free to do so.

    Since both democrats and republicans agreed to the deal, refused to compromise on anything (more taxes/cut spending) and the President also supported the plan, why is it that the sequester is “GOP forced”?

    have another heaping helping of kool-aid my brother.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).